[BC] Bill O'Reilly's interesting comments

[cldube]

Willie:

I think you need to remember that what the ACLU is defending is not NAMBLA's 
beliefs or actions, but simply their right to express their viewpoints in 
court. They are taking on the position of the attorney to the defendant. 
Does a lawyer who defends a murderer in court necessarily believe that what 
the murderer did was right? Or that murder is a good thing? Of course not. 
When the ACLU was defending Ollie North they were acting in the very same 
capacity. The problem is that many in this country seem to believe that 
certain defendents in this country don't deserve the basic constitutional 
right to have their position heard in a court of law because their position 
is considered obscene or immoral.
Isn't that what courts are about? To hear both sides of the issue and make a 
determination based on our legal precedents?
Heaven help us when any party in this country is not considered "moral" 
enough to have their side represented in court. It seems that many at Fox, 
World News Daily etc etc would be comfortable with that as long as their's 
isn't the amoral position by popular consensus.

This is simply knee-jerk judgement with little analysis.

Chuck



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <WFIFeng at aol.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:12 AM
Subject: [BC] Bill O'Reilly's interesting comments


>I thought this was very interesting, and enlightening. What does the ACLU
> *really* stand for? Check it out:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
>
> Willie...
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>